Accurate and complete product descriptions are crucial for e-commerce, yet seller-provided information often falls short. Customer reviews offer valuable details but are laborious to sift through manually. We present PRAISE: Product Review Attribute Insight Structuring Engine, a novel system that uses Large Language Models (LLMs) to automatically extract, compare, and structure insights from customer reviews and seller descriptions. PRAISE provides users with an intuitive interface to identify missing, contradictory, or partially matching details between these two sources, presenting the discrepancies in a clear, structured format alongside supporting evidence from reviews. This allows sellers to easily enhance their product listings for clarity and persuasiveness, and buyers to better assess product reliability. Our demonstration showcases PRAISE's workflow, its effectiveness in generating actionable structured insights from unstructured reviews, and its potential to significantly improve the quality and trustworthiness of e-commerce product catalogs.
Winning competitive debates requires sophisticated reasoning and argument skills. There are unique challenges in the competitive debate: (1) The time constraints force debaters to make strategic choices about which points to pursue rather than covering all possible arguments; (2) The persuasiveness of the debate relies on the back-and-forth interaction between arguments, which a single final game status cannot evaluate. To address these challenges, we propose TreeDebater, a novel debate framework that excels in competitive debate. We introduce two tree structures: the Rehearsal Tree and Debate Flow Tree. The Rehearsal Tree anticipates the attack and defenses to evaluate the strength of the claim, while the Debate Flow Tree tracks the debate status to identify the active actions. TreeDebater allocates its time budget among candidate actions and uses the speech time controller and feedback from the simulated audience to revise its statement. The human evaluation on both the stage-level and the debate-level comparison shows that our TreeDebater outperforms the state-of-the-art multi-agent debate system. Further investigation shows that TreeDebater shows better strategies in limiting time to important debate actions, aligning with the strategies of human debate experts.
Since 2022, versions of generative AI chatbots such as ChatGPT and Claude have been trained using a specialized technique called Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) to fine-tune language model output using feedback from human annotators. As a result, the integration of RLHF has greatly enhanced the outputs of these large language models (LLMs) and made the interactions and responses appear more "human-like" than those of previous versions using only supervised learning. The increasing convergence of human and machine-written text has potentially severe ethical, sociotechnical, and pedagogical implications relating to transparency, trust, bias, and interpersonal relations. To highlight these implications, this paper presents a rhetorical analysis of some of the central procedures and processes currently being reshaped by RLHF-enhanced generative AI chatbots: upholding language conventions, information seeking practices, and expectations for social relationships. Rhetorical investigations of generative AI and LLMs have, to this point, focused largely on the persuasiveness of the content generated. Using Ian Bogost's concept of procedural rhetoric, this paper shifts the site of rhetorical investigation from content analysis to the underlying mechanisms of persuasion built into RLHF-enhanced LLMs. In doing so, this theoretical investigation opens a new direction for further inquiry in AI ethics that considers how procedures rerouted through AI-driven technologies might reinforce hegemonic language use, perpetuate biases, decontextualize learning, and encroach upon human relationships. It will therefore be of interest to educators, researchers, scholars, and the growing number of users of generative AI chatbots.
With the wide adoption of large language models (LLMs) in information assistance, it is essential to examine their alignment with human communication styles and values. We situate this study within the context of fact-checking health information, given the critical challenge of rectifying conceptions and building trust. Recent studies have explored the potential of LLM for health communication, but style differences between LLMs and human experts and associated reader perceptions remain under-explored. In this light, our study evaluates the communication styles of LLMs, focusing on how their explanations differ from those of humans in three core components of health communication: information, sender, and receiver. We compiled a dataset of 1498 health misinformation explanations from authoritative fact-checking organizations and generated LLM responses to inaccurate health information. Drawing from health communication theory, we evaluate communication styles across three key dimensions of information linguistic features, sender persuasive strategies, and receiver value alignments. We further assessed human perceptions through a blinded evaluation with 99 participants. Our findings reveal that LLM-generated articles showed significantly lower scores in persuasive strategies, certainty expressions, and alignment with social values and moral foundations. However, human evaluation demonstrated a strong preference for LLM content, with over 60% responses favoring LLM articles for clarity, completeness, and persuasiveness. Our results suggest that LLMs' structured approach to presenting information may be more effective at engaging readers despite scoring lower on traditional measures of quality in fact-checking and health communication.
Persuasion is a fundamental aspect of communication, influencing decision-making across diverse contexts, from everyday conversations to high-stakes scenarios such as politics, marketing, and law. The rise of conversational AI systems has significantly expanded the scope of persuasion, introducing both opportunities and risks. AI-driven persuasion can be leveraged for beneficial applications, but also poses threats through manipulation and unethical influence. Moreover, AI systems are not only persuaders, but also susceptible to persuasion, making them vulnerable to adversarial attacks and bias reinforcement. Despite rapid advancements in AI-generated persuasive content, our understanding of what makes persuasion effective remains limited due to its inherently subjective and context-dependent nature. In this survey, we provide a comprehensive overview of computational persuasion, structured around three key perspectives: (1) AI as a Persuader, which explores AI-generated persuasive content and its applications; (2) AI as a Persuadee, which examines AI's susceptibility to influence and manipulation; and (3) AI as a Persuasion Judge, which analyzes AI's role in evaluating persuasive strategies, detecting manipulation, and ensuring ethical persuasion. We introduce a taxonomy for computational persuasion research and discuss key challenges, including evaluating persuasiveness, mitigating manipulative persuasion, and developing responsible AI-driven persuasive systems. Our survey outlines future research directions to enhance the safety, fairness, and effectiveness of AI-powered persuasion while addressing the risks posed by increasingly capable language models.
Evaluating user interface (UI) design effectiveness extends beyond aesthetics to influencing user behavior, a principle central to Design Persuasiveness. A/B testing is the predominant method for determining which UI variations drive higher user engagement, but it is costly and time-consuming. While recent Vision-Language Models (VLMs) can process automated UI analysis, current approaches focus on isolated design attributes rather than comparative persuasiveness-the key factor in optimizing user interactions. To address this, we introduce WiserUI-Bench, a benchmark designed for Pairwise UI Design Persuasiveness Assessment task, featuring 300 real-world UI image pairs labeled with A/B test results and expert rationales. Additionally, we propose G-FOCUS, a novel inference-time reasoning strategy that enhances VLM-based persuasiveness assessment by reducing position bias and improving evaluation accuracy. Experimental results show that G-FOCUS surpasses existing inference strategies in consistency and accuracy for pairwise UI evaluation. Through promoting VLM-driven evaluation of UI persuasiveness, our work offers an approach to complement A/B testing, propelling progress in scalable UI preference modeling and design optimization. Code and data will be released publicly.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are a transformational technology, fundamentally changing how people obtain information and interact with the world. As people become increasingly reliant on them for an enormous variety of tasks, a body of academic research has developed to examine these models for inherent biases, especially political biases, often finding them small. We challenge this prevailing wisdom. First, by comparing 31 LLMs to legislators, judges, and a nationally representative sample of U.S. voters, we show that LLMs' apparently small overall partisan preference is the net result of offsetting extreme views on specific topics, much like moderate voters. Second, in a randomized experiment, we show that LLMs can promulgate their preferences into political persuasiveness even in information-seeking contexts: voters randomized to discuss political issues with an LLM chatbot are as much as 5 percentage points more likely to express the same preferences as that chatbot. Contrary to expectations, these persuasive effects are not moderated by familiarity with LLMs, news consumption, or interest in politics. LLMs, especially those controlled by private companies or governments, may become a powerful and targeted vector for political influence.
In recent years, significant concern has emerged regarding the potential threat that Large Language Models (LLMs) pose to democratic societies through their persuasive capabilities. We expand upon existing research by conducting two survey experiments and a real-world simulation exercise to determine whether it is more cost effective to persuade a large number of voters using LLM chatbots compared to standard political campaign practice, taking into account both the "receive" and "accept" steps in the persuasion process (Zaller 1992). These experiments improve upon previous work by assessing extended interactions between humans and LLMs (instead of using single-shot interactions) and by assessing both short- and long-run persuasive effects (rather than simply asking users to rate the persuasiveness of LLM-produced content). In two survey experiments (N = 10,417) across three distinct political domains, we find that while LLMs are about as persuasive as actual campaign ads once voters are exposed to them, political persuasion in the real-world depends on both exposure to a persuasive message and its impact conditional on exposure. Through simulations based on real-world parameters, we estimate that LLM-based persuasion costs between \$48-\$74 per persuaded voter compared to \$100 for traditional campaign methods, when accounting for the costs of exposure. However, it is currently much easier to scale traditional campaign persuasion methods than LLM-based persuasion. While LLMs do not currently appear to have substantially greater potential for large-scale political persuasion than existing non-LLM methods, this may change as LLM capabilities continue to improve and it becomes easier to scalably encourage exposure to persuasive LLMs.
As generative artificial intelligence (AI) enables the creation and dissemination of information at massive scale and speed, it is increasingly important to understand how people perceive AI-generated content. One prominent policy proposal requires explicitly labeling AI-generated content to increase transparency and encourage critical thinking about the information, but prior research has not yet tested the effects of such labels. To address this gap, we conducted a survey experiment (N=1601) on a diverse sample of Americans, presenting participants with an AI-generated message about several public policies (e.g., allowing colleges to pay student-athletes), randomly assigning whether participants were told the message was generated by (a) an expert AI model, (b) a human policy expert, or (c) no label. We found that messages were generally persuasive, influencing participants' views of the policies by 9.74 percentage points on average. However, while 94.6% of participants assigned to the AI and human label conditions believed the authorship labels, labels had no significant effects on participants' attitude change toward the policies, judgments of message accuracy, nor intentions to share the message with others. These patterns were robust across a variety of participant characteristics, including prior knowledge of the policy, prior experience with AI, political party, education level, or age. Taken together, these results imply that, while authorship labels would likely enhance transparency, they are unlikely to substantially affect the persuasiveness of the labeled content, highlighting the need for alternative strategies to address challenges posed by AI-generated information.
This paper investigates the role of dynamic external knowledge integration in improving counter-argument generation using Large Language Models (LLMs). While LLMs have shown promise in argumentative tasks, their tendency to generate lengthy, potentially unfactual responses highlights the need for more controlled and evidence-based approaches. We introduce a new manually curated dataset of argument and counter-argument pairs specifically designed to balance argumentative complexity with evaluative feasibility. We also propose a new LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation methodology that shows a stronger correlation with human judgments compared to traditional reference-based metrics. Our experimental results demonstrate that integrating dynamic external knowledge from the web significantly improves the quality of generated counter-arguments, particularly in terms of relatedness, persuasiveness, and factuality. The findings suggest that combining LLMs with real-time external knowledge retrieval offers a promising direction for developing more effective and reliable counter-argumentation systems.
Large language model (LLM) agents have evolved to intelligently process information, make decisions, and interact with users or tools. A key capability is the integration of long-term memory capabilities, enabling these agents to draw upon historical interactions and knowledge. However, the growing memory size and need for semantic structuring pose significant challenges. In this work, we propose an autonomous memory augmentation approach, MemInsight, to enhance semantic data representation and retrieval mechanisms. By leveraging autonomous augmentation to historical interactions, LLM agents are shown to deliver more accurate and contextualized responses. We empirically validate the efficacy of our proposed approach in three task scenarios; conversational recommendation, question answering and event summarization. On the LLM-REDIAL dataset, MemInsight boosts persuasiveness of recommendations by up to 14%. Moreover, it outperforms a RAG baseline by 34% in recall for LoCoMo retrieval. Our empirical results show the potential of MemInsight to enhance the contextual performance of LLM agents across multiple tasks.
Recent advances in generative AI have precipitated a proliferation of novel writing assistants. These systems typically rely on multilingual large language models (LLMs), providing globalized workers the ability to revise or create diverse forms of content in different languages. However, there is substantial evidence indicating that the performance of multilingual LLMs varies between languages. Users who employ writing assistance for multiple languages are therefore susceptible to disparate output quality. Importantly, recent research has shown that people tend to generalize algorithmic errors across independent tasks, violating the behavioral axiom of choice independence. In this paper, we analyze whether user utilization of novel writing assistants in a charity advertisement writing task is affected by the AI's performance in a second language. Furthermore, we quantify the extent to which these patterns translate into the persuasiveness of generated charity advertisements, as well as the role of peoples' beliefs about LLM utilization in their donation choices. Our results provide evidence that writers who engage with an LLM-based writing assistant violate choice independence, as prior exposure to a Spanish LLM reduces subsequent utilization of an English LLM. While these patterns do not affect the aggregate persuasiveness of the generated advertisements, people's beliefs about the source of an advertisement (human versus AI) do. In particular, Spanish-speaking female participants who believed that they read an AI-generated advertisement strongly adjusted their donation behavior downwards. Furthermore, people are generally not able to adequately differentiate between human-generated and LLM-generated ads. Our work has important implications for the design, development, integration, and adoption of multilingual LLMs as assistive agents -- particularly in writing tasks.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly persuasive, demonstrating the ability to personalize arguments in conversation with humans by leveraging their personal data. This may have serious impacts on the scale and effectiveness of disinformation campaigns. We studied the persuasiveness of LLMs in a debate setting by having humans $(n=33)$ engage with LLM-generated arguments intended to change the human's opinion. We quantified the LLM's effect by measuring human agreement with the debate's hypothesis pre- and post-debate and analyzing both the magnitude of opinion change, as well as the likelihood of an update in the LLM's direction. We compare persuasiveness across established persuasion strategies, including personalized arguments informed by user demographics and personality, appeal to fabricated statistics, and a mixed strategy utilizing both personalized arguments and fabricated statistics. We found that static arguments generated by humans and GPT-4o-mini have comparable persuasive power. However, the LLM outperformed static human-written arguments when leveraging the mixed strategy in an interactive debate setting. This approach had a $\mathbf{51\%}$ chance of persuading participants to modify their initial position, compared to $\mathbf{32\%}$ for the static human-written arguments. Our results highlight the concerning potential for LLMs to enable inexpensive and persuasive large-scale disinformation campaigns.
As large language models (LLMs) have been deployed in various real-world settings, concerns about the harm they may propagate have grown. Various jailbreaking techniques have been developed to expose the vulnerabilities of these models and improve their safety. This work reveals that many state-of-the-art proprietary and open-source LLMs are vulnerable to malicious requests hidden behind scientific language. Specifically, our experiments with GPT4o, GPT4o-mini, GPT-4, LLama3-405B-Instruct, Llama3-70B-Instruct, Cohere, Gemini models on the StereoSet data demonstrate that, the models' biases and toxicity substantially increase when prompted with requests that deliberately misinterpret social science and psychological studies as evidence supporting the benefits of stereotypical biases. Alarmingly, these models can also be manipulated to generate fabricated scientific arguments claiming that biases are beneficial, which can be used by ill-intended actors to systematically jailbreak even the strongest models like GPT. Our analysis studies various factors that contribute to the models' vulnerabilities to malicious requests in academic language. Mentioning author names and venues enhances the persuasiveness of some models, and the bias scores can increase as dialogues progress. Our findings call for a more careful investigation on the use of scientific data in the training of LLMs.
This study compares the performance of AI-generated and human-written product descriptions using a multifaceted evaluation model. We analyze descriptions for 100 products generated by four AI models (Gemma 2B, LLAMA, GPT2, and ChatGPT 4) with and without sample descriptions, against human-written descriptions. Our evaluation metrics include sentiment, readability, persuasiveness, Search Engine Optimization(SEO), clarity, emotional appeal, and call-to-action effectiveness. The results indicate that ChatGPT 4 performs the best. In contrast, other models demonstrate significant shortcomings, producing incoherent and illogical output that lacks logical structure and contextual relevance. These models struggle to maintain focus on the product being described, resulting in disjointed sentences that do not convey meaningful information. This research provides insights into the current capabilities and limitations of AI in the creation of content for e-Commerce.
We address the task of advertisement image generation and introduce three evaluation metrics to assess Creativity, prompt Alignment, and Persuasiveness (CAP) in generated advertisement images. Despite recent advancements in Text-to-Image (T2I) generation and their performance in generating high-quality images for explicit descriptions, evaluating these models remains challenging. Existing evaluation methods focus largely on assessing alignment with explicit, detailed descriptions, but evaluating alignment with visually implicit prompts remains an open problem. Additionally, creativity and persuasiveness are essential qualities that enhance the effectiveness of advertisement images, yet are seldom measured. To address this, we propose three novel metrics for evaluating the creativity, alignment, and persuasiveness of generated images. Our findings reveal that current T2I models struggle with creativity, persuasiveness, and alignment when the input text is implicit messages. We further introduce a simple yet effective approach to enhance T2I models' capabilities in producing images that are better aligned, more creative, and more persuasive.
AI-generated counterspeech offers a promising and scalable strategy to curb online toxicity through direct replies that promote civil discourse. However, current counterspeech is one-size-fits-all, lacking adaptation to the moderation context and the users involved. We propose and evaluate multiple strategies for generating tailored counterspeech that is adapted to the moderation context and personalized for the moderated user. We instruct an LLaMA2-13B model to generate counterspeech, experimenting with various configurations based on different contextual information and fine-tuning strategies. We identify the configurations that generate persuasive counterspeech through a combination of quantitative indicators and human evaluations collected via a pre-registered mixed-design crowdsourcing experiment. Results show that contextualized counterspeech can significantly outperform state-of-the-art generic counterspeech in adequacy and persuasiveness, without compromising other characteristics. Our findings also reveal a poor correlation between quantitative indicators and human evaluations, suggesting that these methods assess different aspects and highlighting the need for nuanced evaluation methodologies. The effectiveness of contextualized AI-generated counterspeech and the divergence between human and algorithmic evaluations underscore the importance of increased human-AI collaboration in content moderation.
The rapid rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has created new disruptive possibilities for persuasive communication, by enabling fully-automated personalized and interactive content generation at an unprecedented scale. In this paper, we survey the research field of LLM-based persuasion that has emerged as a result. We begin by exploring the different modes in which LLM Systems are used to influence human attitudes and behaviors. In areas such as politics, marketing, public health, e-commerce, and charitable giving, such LLM Systems have already achieved human-level or even super-human persuasiveness. We identify key factors influencing their effectiveness, such as the manner of personalization and whether the content is labelled as AI-generated. We also summarize the experimental designs that have been used to evaluate progress. Our survey suggests that the current and future potential of LLM-based persuasion poses profound ethical and societal risks, including the spread of misinformation, the magnification of biases, and the invasion of privacy. These risks underscore the urgent need for ethical guidelines and updated regulatory frameworks to avoid the widespread deployment of irresponsible and harmful LLM Systems.
How could LLMs influence our democracy? We investigate LLMs' political leanings and the potential influence of LLMs on voters by conducting multiple experiments in a U.S. presidential election context. Through a voting simulation, we first demonstrate 18 open- and closed-weight LLMs' political preference for a Democratic nominee over a Republican nominee. We show how this leaning towards the Democratic nominee becomes more pronounced in instruction-tuned models compared to their base versions by analyzing their responses to candidate-policy related questions. We further explore the potential impact of LLMs on voter choice by conducting an experiment with 935 U.S. registered voters. During the experiments, participants interacted with LLMs (Claude-3, Llama-3, and GPT-4) over five exchanges. The experiment results show a shift in voter choices towards the Democratic nominee following LLM interaction, widening the voting margin from 0.7% to 4.6%, even though LLMs were not asked to persuade users to support the Democratic nominee during the discourse. This effect is larger than many previous studies on the persuasiveness of political campaigns, which have shown minimal effects in presidential elections. Many users also expressed a desire for further political interaction with LLMs. Which aspects of LLM interactions drove these shifts in voter choice requires further study. Lastly, we explore how a safety method can make LLMs more politically neutral, while raising the question of whether such neutrality is truly the path forward.
Argumentative essay generation (AEG) aims to generate complete texts on specific controversial topics or debates. Although current AEG methods can generate individual opinions, they often overlook the high-level connections between these opinions. This often leads to the generated results being mired in logical confusion, unable to proof their own arguments effectively. The generated essay may present evidence that contradicts the claims or they may fail to assemble the claims into logical flow. In this paper, we present a unified two-stage framework: Proof-Enhancement and Self-Annotation (PESA) for AEG with a focus on logical enhancement. Specifically, we first construct pseudo-labels for logical information,claims and grounds, using a large language model. We then propose a tree planning approach that introduces proof principles and ensures logical consistency. Extensive experimental results show that, benefiting from proof principle guidance, PESA generates argumentative essays with better logical validity and persuasiveness than strong baseline models.